Oklahoma passes newer strict abortion laws
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/us/28abortion.html?hp

The Oklahoma Legislature voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to override vetoes of two highly restrictive abortion measures, one making it a law that women undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before having an abortion.

Though other states have passed similar measures forcing women to have ultrasounds, Oklahoma’s law goes further, requiring a doctor or technician to set up the monitor where the woman can see it and describe the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus. No exceptions are made for rape and incest victims.

The second measure passed into law Tuesday protects doctors from malpractice suits if they decide not to inform the parents of a unborn baby that the fetus has birth defects. The intent of the bill is to prevent parents from later suing doctors who withhold information to try to influence them against having an abortion.


WHATTTT! This is totally medically unethical! Physicians can't withhold this type of information from patients. What a tangled web we weave...
What if these defects could be repaired? What if the patient would need specialized care after birth? What if the parents would elect to keep the child but not spend thousands of dollars preparing a nursery that would never be used? How dare they take this type of decision out of the hands of the parents and dump it into the laps of physicians. Ohhh...but we can't be sued. Thanks.

And folks complain that Obama is a fascist. Lol

It's only fascism if you don't agree.:rolleyes:

Yep and that applies to every President.

That is terrible.

So... what if the doctor/ultrasound technician is pro-abortion?

Sorry about this, folks. We should have this declared unconstitutional again in fairly short order. Sorry again for the side show.

-- Sincerely, Oklahoma.

Beyond wrong.

So what happens if a woman decides to have an abortion very early on in the pregnancy, as in before the limbs and organs are distinguishable?

As for the second piece of legislation...I hope those state legislators are ready to pass the hat, because there are going to be some more kids in state custody or on state assistance due to medical bills.

Seriously, do people (include politicians) even think about the consequences of their actions anymore? Repeat after me: For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction!

I'm fairly close to the Oklahoma legislature. Lots of friends work in and around that body. I'm less than a mile away from the state capitol building as I type this. I can tell you with certainty that most Oklahoma legislators are complete morons. It's embarrassing.

I'll describe it for you...."Looks like a bean."

Kidney? Lima?...Black?

Kinda gray since US in in grayscale so I can't give you a color:p
I'd say Kidney since it's already shaped like a body part!!

For whatever reason this made me laugh really hard.

The author of one of these was an heir in a probate case I worked on while in law school. Nice guy. Smart guy. Heard him on the radio this morning. Also a wannabe political hack.

It made me laugh and :rolleyes:

Can I just tell you how glad I am that I don't live in Oklahoma???

There is also no exemption for rape victims. Oh, you were raped and you got pregnant as a result and you want to abort? Too bad, you'll still have to get an ultrasound (likely a transvag) and sit through a lecture on how your "baby" is sooo beautiful. It must feel like being raped all over again.

No kidding. Like at 6 weeks are they going to point out the tail? Is that considered a limb?

Wait wait wait. So is this just for women considering abortion or for all women? Because that sounds like any dcotr who finds that a fetus has a birth defect doesn't have to tell ANY expecting parent---which sounds dumb as hell in my head and I really need someone to confirm that that's what I just read. I'm not even commenting on the rest until I can wrap my mind around that.

Yes, one can get raped by a family member, hear all about their baby, and not even be told if there are any potential birth defects that may arise because the sperm came from someone they share a lot of DNA with, awesome.

Ooooh okay so it's just for women who are going through the ultrasound/testing for an abortion? I understand. Yes, that's still dumb as IDKW but not on as wide-spread of a scale as I was thinking. I thought the law was for all expecting women who are seeing an OBGYN for a prenatal check-up (that a doc is clear to NEVER reveal birth defects so a woman who finds her baby isn't as healthy as she thought won't then decide to abort). Still, that's seriously messed up.

ETA: As far as law #1, I see both sides to it. I see that the gov't is trying to make women understand the gravity of the decision they're about to make, but it's a solid argument that it's not the gov't's place to "make" women understand anything. That can be seen as overstepping a line and can further traumatize an already traumatized woman/girl. I say "can be seen" because there are undoubtedly people who see it as just the opposite--there had to be for this darn thing to have passed.

There's another bill coming up HB 3284, a 38 question form a woman has to fill out, and damn it pisses me off. I copied this from the actual bill text.

REASON GIVEN FOR ABORTION (check all applicable):
Having a baby:
Would dramatically change the life of the mother: _________
Would interfere with the education of the mother: _________
Would interfere with the job/employment/career of the mother: ______
Mother has other children or dependents: ________
Mother cannot afford the child: ______
Mother is unmarried: ________
Mother is a student or planning to be a student: ________
Mother cannot afford child care: _______
Mother cannot afford the basic needs of life: ________
Mother is unemployed: _________
Mother cannot leave job to care for a baby: _________
Mother would have to find a new place to live: _________
Mother does not have enough support from a husband or partner: _____
Husband or partner is unemployed: _______
Mother is currently or temporarily on welfare or public assistance: _________
Mother does not want to be a single mother: _______
Mother is having relationship problems: ________
Mother is not certain of relationship with the father of the child: ________
Partner and mother are unable to or do not want to get married: _______
Mother is not currently in a relationship: _______
The relationship or marriage of the mother may soon break up: _______
Husband or partner is abusive to the mother or her children: _______
Mother has completed her childbearing: ________
Mother is not ready for a, or another, child: _______
Mother does not want people to know that she had sex or became pregnant: ________
Mother does not feel mature enough to raise a, or another, child: _______
Husband or partner wants mother to have an abortion: ______
There may be possible problem affecting the health of the fetus: ________
Physical health of the mother is at risk: ________
Parents want mother to have an abortion: _________
Emotional health of the mother is at risk: ________
Mother suffered from a medical emergency as defined in Section 1-738.1 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes: ______
Mother wanted a child of a different sex: ______
Abortion is necessary to avert the death of the mother: ______
Pregnancy was a result of forcible rape: ______
Pregnancy was a result of incest: ______
Other (specify): ______
Patient was asked why she is seeking an abortion, but she declined to give a reason: _______


Why you so damn nosy Oklahoma?

1. Because it's not just the woman's body, there is a completely seperate body involved belonging to another human being, completely dependent on the first, but seperate nonetheless. Not being facetious--this question has been asked several times and this is always the answer that is given (by whomever the proporters are).

2. Didn't there used to be one of those? Back when it was illegal to tie your tubes without telling your husband/SO? Or is that still illegal in some places? I feel like there was a discussion about this on GC at some point (because a man didn't have to be forthcoming about a v-sec and that double standard was ridiculous).

Honestly, you don't even have to give a reason for declining a flu/hep vaccine! That questionnaire is overboard.

That's the way I read it, too!

It is saying that the doctor does not have to inform you if he thinks your baby has birth defects period. The intent is to keep people from aborting babies who are severely deformed. A doctor wouldn't know whether parents might choose to abort if they know that their baby is going to be so severely deformed that it cannot live more than a few hours after birth or require lifetime institutionalization, etc. Is the next step to exempt a doctor if they choose not to tell you that your own life is in danger if the pregnancy continues???

As for the checklist, I think I'd check "Other" with "None of your business" (perhaps with an expletive too!) if given that form.

As for whether there is a separate human being involved, that is the part that is up to debate and that will always be a big difference between pro-lifers and pro-choicers. Some of us do not believe it is a separate human being until it can survive on its own without the host. The question of when life begins (along with religion) is the real root of this debate, always and nobody has a real, definitive answer.

As opposed to non-forcible rape?

Seriously, if laws like this passed in my state, I would move, or at the very least go across the state border for my health care. Scary.

Like most of this bill, this part is unconstitutional. The Oklahoma Constitution, believe it or not, is pretty progressive. These sorts of immunity statutes have been disposed with in the past and this one ought to be no different. The Oklahoma Constitution requires that for every wrong there shall be a remedy.

This particular statute is to prevent wrongful birth suits and the above is one such fact patter which would ordinarily lead to these sorts of suits.

This is maybe the one area where I don't see a problem with the bill. Nothing is personally identifiable. It could still be found that the purpose of this survey is intimidation and that'd probably be an undue burden situation. Or how about if the mother was unable to fill out the form because she had been raped and beaten into a coma and was now pregnant? Maybe the lack of a health of the mother exception is fatal here as well?

At the point of viability, according to present law, the state has a compelling interest in protecting the life of the child. As long as there's some health of the mother exception, prohibitions past week 20 or so on abortion could theoretically be permissible.

It's fairly likely ALL of these things will be struck down though. And in that event, this highly conservative, right of right legislature is simply funneling money (attorneys fees) into the coffers of the ACLU and other pro-choice legal consortiums. I'm sure these groups appreciate Oklahoma's efforts because like most non-profits, their donations are probably down because of the economy.

ETA: Just heard the District Judge assigned to the case is my cousin. She's a fair judge, will not be swayed by politics. Hella smart lady too. She'll make the right call.

Perhaps they are trying to figure out the reason for unwanted pregnancies so they can try to cut down on abortions by preventing them.

Well there are various forms of non-forcible rape.

Ummm...you mean like birth control? Condoms? Nah...they've proven on many occasions to be interested only in abstinence as a means of prevention of abortions so that can be the reason behind that law.

This 20 week crap is a BIG problem - viability isn't until around 24 weeks and even then it's a 50% survival chance with excellent medical care and a lot of luck. Trying to stay neutral here but states that keep trying to "push it back" are WRONG.

Yup, gotta love the dildo cam :rolleyes: NOT!

I know, right?

This is clear and utter bullshit!

I am under the impression that the age of viability isn't the issue.
:mad:
I was gonna say "You're kidding," but I remember the Sami/EJ storyline on Days of Our Lives. Who says daytime TV isn't educational?

As a native Oklahoman and a woman, I'm seriously thinking about moving. I've had a lot of talks with friends and boyfriends over the years about what would happen if I got pregnant. I am vehemently pro-choice, but I do not know if I could personally make that choice. But I don't want the state making that choice FOR ME. And trust me, I'm not going to get an abortion clinic without having SERIOUSLY thought about every aspect of this decision, and having somebody patronize me about my fetus is going to piss me off more than anything else.

And withholding important medical information to further your own political or religious agenda is unethical and wrong.

Question: under this law, if I ask about birth defects, can they lie? Or do they have to tell me? Or avoid the question. If they avoid the question, I'm getting a new doctor.

Statutory and date rape are both rape, but don't necessarily require force.

I forgot about those. In the sitch I mentioned, EJ would only help Sami save her fiance (who was trapped in a collapsed cabin) if she had sex with him. She "consented" but only under threat. That's obviously a soap opera extreme, but people coerce along the lines of "Do this or else" all the time, especially with adult/child situations.

Notice the over-emphasis on the word "mother".

I would also check the "other" box and specify "none of your damned business, kindly keep your legislation out of my uterus!"

I guess it's semantics. To me, anything that isn't freely consented to is forced, that's why it's rape - but I can see why there would be different legal categories.